NFL Week 7 predictions

Posted on


Using the same formula that I used to win approximately 50% of last years football pool weeks, here are my predictions for week 7 of the 2011 NFL season.  I’ll put my record at the end of this season against any of the analysts on ESPN.

Winners:

Detroit

Tennessee

Miami

San Diego

Chicago

Washington

Oakland

Pittsburgh

Dallas

Green Bay

New Orleans

Baltimore

Cleveland

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “NFL Week 7 predictions

    WTP said:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    0-5 Miami over Team Tebow?

    magus71 responded:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Ha! You called me out on my toughest call. I had to really do some analysis on this one, but Denver’s defense, statistically, is atrocious. Miami’s isn’t much better, but they are at home. Tebow is an X factor at this point.

    WTP said:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Well in this case, I’d take the home field advantage away from Miami and add it to Denver. At least while Tebow is on the field. Ticket sales for this game got hot when it was announced that Tebow would be starting. I think even some of the Miami fans will be pulling for him.

    magus71 responded:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    I’m a Tebow fan. I think he’ll be a successful QB at some point. Maybe this week–it was a tough call for me. I really don’t understand why people are questioning the move to start him–he was their 1st rnd pick last year –is it controversial to start Cam Newton this year? no.

    WTP said:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Well, Tebow does have some issues in the throwing mechanics department as far as the pro game goes. He’s a lot like Jim McMahon in play style, so he’s more likely to get hurt than Newton. Granted Newton will run the ball and get hit, but he’s not as likely to take on an NFL linebacker head-on like Tebow will. If I’m head coach and I have the two of them on my team, I’m starting Newton. But I’ll spend a hell of a lot of time talking to Tebow and playing him whenever possible to keep Newton motivated. Ahh, but then there’s Kipling:

    If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;

    WTP said:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    I was about 15 seconds from saying you were right. Prudence…

    magus71 responded:
    October 23, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    Yeah–this ended up being a very bad week for my predictions. Usually average 3 or less wrongs. Oh well–ya play the odds…

    Royce said:
    October 24, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Doug: I have opened the article and have read it. I will reply in more detail later today but my first impression is that this is a lot of fuzzy thinking common to philosophers. I don’t agree with his logic or zero sum conclusion. I’ll write a more detailed response later

    Royce

    Royce said:
    October 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Is Wealth Zero Sum
    By
    Royce Callaway

    The postulation that wealth is zero sum, meaning that whatever wealth I have has been gained at the expense of others, in effect total global wealth is finite but is inequitably distributed. This argument rests on the assumption that wealth cannot be created and wealth can be defined and quantified. I submit that this is a fallacious argument.

    First wealth can be defined in many ways such as the value of knowledge, a great many friends, honors, respect, or many other abstractions where the “wealth” is self determined or determined arbitrarily by others. This type of wealth is not finite and can be both created and destroyed. Therefore, for any meaningful argument wealth must be defined in terms of tangible goods such as gold, money, art, land, etc. But the postulation is that wealth is zero sum meaning that it is finite when it is obvious that the world’s available wealth today is far greater than it was a hundred years ago. But the professor / philosopher avoids this inconsistency by stating that his zero sum argument only applies to the moment and cannot be viewed in any historical context. But this refutes his argument that wealth cannot be created because global wealth has increased and he acknowledges this. This reduces his argument to the total global wealth is finite at any given moment, which is true at that moment, but in the next moment new wealth can be created e.g. a gold strike, oil strike, new invention, etc. The professor / philosopher acknowledges this but then moves to the more abstract view of wealth common to those who argue that wealth can only be gained at the expense of others – hence that wealth is finite.

    The argument then becomes increasingly doctrinaire as he attacks – without noting – capitalism. He argues as follows:

    “Material wealth obviously originated in the creation/origin of the universe (that is where the stuff comes from). Once we had the earth and people, people could start acquiring material goods like land and resources. These resources can be made more valuable by the addition of labor, thus creating wealth. They can also be made more valuable by other means, such as creating scarcity and controlling pricing. These material goods can be acquired in various ways, fair and foul. The classic method is, of course, conquest.”

    How this argument supports a zero sum conclusion is beyond me because it demonstrates how wealth can be created and shared yielding a wealthier population overall. The actual argument appears to be the inequity of some people being wealthier than others based on the assumption that unethical and even illegal means were used to accumulate that wealth. He leaves no room for wealth accumulation via fair means. But his argument has ceased being the creation of wealth but instead has shifted to the sharing of wealth.
    At this point the argument shifts to the abstraction of money “the pieces of paper” whose value is commonly agreed to but his real argument doesn’t appear to be the creation of wealth but how that wealth is created.
    “Monetary wealth is obviously a social construct: we made up the financial game and the “creation” of wealth depends on the sort of game being played at any given time. For example, some folks “created” wealth by clever repackaging of toxic assets. Other people “create” wealth by working and investing their money (which is supposed to give them more money). In many ways, this is “fictional” wealth in that we are literally just making this stuff up and its value depends entirely on how far we are willing to all play make-believe. Yes, I play the game-it is a convenient way to handle exchanges in some ways. But, I always remember that it is just a game we are playing (I work, I get some paper, I hand the paper to someone and they give me an apple).”
    The point being made here is a little fuzzy to me because everyone knows that paper money is an abstraction whose value is set by common agreement and backed by the government. The creation of wealth followed the same rules when commerce depended entirely on gold and silver currency. It appears that he is simply opposed to how wealth is created and how it is inequitably distributed. But he concludes his argument that wealth is finite by arguing that currency (paper) is finite because printing more doesn’t create wealth but results in inflation. That is true but then at a stroke he reduces wealth to how much money you have and since that is finite wealth is finite and zero sum. That is ridiculous of course because tangible wealth can be created in many ways and the currency is simply a method of measuring the wealth created.
    In my opinion this entire argument illogical and rests on false assumptions. And when the argument is reduced to its core it appears that it is anti-capitalism and the unequal distribution of wealth.

    .

    magus71 responded:
    October 24, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    Royce,

    I really appreciate what I consider your expert opinion here. I’m trying to educate myself in economics, as I now consider it necessary to understanding the world. In addition, when I was in Afghanistan, the intelligence analysts there, including myself, were and are deficient in the understanding of economics and how the influx of cash and US sponsored projects can affect tribal areas.

    As far as the philosopher’s views, I completely agree that they are essentially a complaint against how money is distributed, not a real argument that wealth is zero sum.

    Thanks for the economics lesson.

    WTP said:
    October 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Whatsamatta, Magus, don’t you trust me?

    Royce, it’s like looking in a mirror. Only you’re better looking.

    What this has to do with the downright awesomeness of (future President) Tim Tebow is beyond me, but it is nice to have some spontaneous validation once in a while.

    magus71 responded:
    October 24, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    I asked Royce to look at Mike’s blog post on wealth. I told him to throw his opinion up on my blog somewhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s